CC No: 1581/2014 to 1585/2014

 Filed on 06.09.2014

Disposed on 31.05.2016

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 052

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF MAY 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NOs. 1581/2014 TO 1585/2014

PRESENT:

Sri. H.S.Ramakrishna,  B.Sc., LL.B.

                                    PRESIDENT

                        Smt. L. Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                        MEMBER

                                                        V/S

 
COMMON   ORDER 

BY SRI H.S. RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1.         These Complaints are filed by the LR’s of Smt. Jayalakshmi and Late Sri Padmanabha Rao against the same Opposite Parties u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant in CC.No.1581/2014 is the son of Late Smt. Seethabai and Late Sri.Ramprasad.  The Complainant in CC.No.1584/2014 is the daughter-in-law of Smt.Seethabai and the Complainant in CC.No.1585/2014 Sri Kumar is the son of Late Sri Ramprasad who are also sustained injuries in the fire accident.  The complainants in CC.No.1582/2014 are the son and daughter of Late Sri Padmanabha Rao.  The complainants in CC.No.1583/2014 are also the sons of Late Sri Ramprasad.  In the said fire accident, the wife of Late Sri Ramprasad i.e. Smt. Seetha Bai and daughter-in-law of Late Sri Ramprasad i.e. Smt. Jayalakshmi were succumbed to injuries.  For that reason, these LR’s of Late Sri Ramprasad and Late Smt.Seethabai filed these complaints.  The relief claimed in these complaints are identical and similar.  Hence, to avoid repetition of work and conflict of verdict, these cases are clubbed together and common order has been passed.

2.         The brief facts of the Complaint can be stated as under:

 The Complainants alleged that Late Sri Padmanabha Rao had obtained LPG gas connection bearing No.19764 with additional cylinder for the domestic use from the 2^nd Opposite Party.  The 2^nd Opposite Party is the dealer/distributor of the 1^st Opposite Party.  The complainant booked LPG cylinder with the Opposite Party on 13.05.2012.  The Opposite Party supplied LPG cylinder on 26.05.2012 vide voucher No.32364 and collected a sum of Rs.415/-.  The LPG cylinder supplied by the Opposite Party was faulty, defective and substandard which did not contain the requisite mandatory safety pin which is essentially required to prevent the gas from leaking.  At the time of delivery, the cylinder was covered by a plastic seal and the fact that the existence of the safety pin in the cylinder was not visible.  Office of the Opposite Party on examination has come to conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence and fault of the Opposite Party and on 06.06.2012 the first cylinder became empty.  The mother of the Complainant No.1 Late Smt. Seethabai had a vast experience in connecting the regulator to the new cylinder.  When Smt. Seethabai removed the specific plastic seal cover in the usual manner for the purpose of connecting it to the regulator, the gas inside the faulty cylinder leaked out very fast since there was no safety pin.  Smt. Seethabai tried to stop the leakage by closing the cylinder with a bed sheet and pushed the same towards the rear door.  There was a lamp in the kitchen which leads to catching fire and spreading all over the house.  The efforts of Smt. Seethabai, to stop the leakage of gas was not stopped and continued to leak and consequently, a huge fire broke out in the house.    At the time of the incident, Smt. Jayalakshmi grandmother of the Complainant was there in the same place along with the said Smt.Seethabai, the Complainant, his brother Sri R. Kumar and his sister-in-law Smt. Chandrika.  As a result of the fire that broke out, all the aforesaid five persons seriously got burn injuries and all of them were admitted to Shreya Nursing Home and thereafter shifted to BGS Global Hospital.  Smt. Seethabai and Smt.Jayalakshmi were succumbed due to burn injuries suffered by them on 19.06.2012 and 03.07.2012 respectively.  The other injured persons took treatment for their injuries, the Complainant suffered first and second degree 35 to 40% burns and he took treatment from 06.06.2012 to 12.07.2012 and spent a sum of Rs.15,000/- at Shreya Hospital and also spent at about 1,45,000/- at BGS Hospital.  The fire broke out on 06.06.2012 leading to death of Smt.Jayalakshmi and Smt. Seethabai and injury to the Complainant and others was due to leakage of gas on account of faulty cylinder supplied by the Opposite Party.  The Complainant filed the complaint before the jurisdictional police who registered the FIR.  The 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant that he had obtained insurance from National Insurance Company and requested the Complainant to submit relevant documents for the purpose of reimbursement.  The Complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant in CC.No.1581/2014 received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Complainant in CC.No.1582/2014 received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, the Complainant in CC.No.1583/2014 received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, the Complainant in CC.No.1584/2014 received a sum of Rs.26,940/- and the Complainant in CC.No.1585/2014 received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the insurance company without prejudice to their right.  The Complainant issued a notice and the 1^st Opposite Party had not issued any reply and the 2^nd Opposite Party issued a reply.  The Complainant in CC.No.1581/2014 claiming compensation of Rs.7,18,000/-, the Complainants in CC.No.1582/2014 have claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, the complainants in CC.No.1583/2014 have claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-, the Complainant in CC.No.1584/2014 has claiming compensation Rs.2,00,000/- and the Complainant in CC.No.1585/2014 has claiming compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- for the injuries sustained by them.  Hence, these complaints.

3.         In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed their separate version. Initially the complaints are only against Opposite Parties 1 & 2.  After filing version of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2, the Complainant impleaded Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.3 is also filed their separate version.    The 1^st Opposite Party in version pleaded that this complaint is false and frivolous and not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence, the complaints are liable to be dismissed in liminie.  The 1^st Opposite Party has no comments over the averments made in Para 1 & 2 of the complaints.  It is not in dispute that the grandfather of the Complainant Late Sri Padmanabha Rao had a LPG gas connection bearing No.19764.  The connection was in the name of deceased person.  After the death of any consumer, the successors must inform it to distributor and submit relevant documents and accordingly, name should be changed.  But in the instant case, the consumer is a deceased person.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  It is not in dispute that the cylinder was supplied through the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant’s house on 26.05.2012 vide voucher No.32364.  The LPG cylinders supplied by the 1^st Opposite Party are thoroughly subjected to leakage tests by qualified personnel by using sophisticate equipment at the bottling plants.  The distributor in turn carried out pre-delivery checks before delivering the filled cylinder to the customer.  In the instant case, the gas cylinder was supplied to the Complainants on 26.05.2012, after thoroughly checking the cylinder.  At the time of delivery or even subsequently, there was no complaint from anybody regarding leakage of gas from the cylinder.  This only shows that there was no defect of any nature in the cylinder supplied.

            4.         The averments made in Para-5 of the complaint is not within the knowledge of this Opposite Party and the Complainants are put to strict proof of the same.  However, from the said averments one thing is clear that whether it is Smt. Seethabai or who so ever he or she be, has not exercised the most elementary precaution of putting back the safety cap in its place of the cylinder.  If the cylinder was really leaking instead of covering the cylinder with a bed sheet and pushing the same towards the rear door, precaution of putting back the safety cap in its place of the   cylinder should have been done.  As regards breaking out of huge fire, it is because of the lamp which was burning in the pooja room near the place where the cylinder was tried to be opened for changing and the same should have been put off.  Because of this, huge fire might have been broken out in the house.  Hence, the incident has happened only due to the lack of knowledge.  The complainants failed to act as instructed to them when the leakage was found in the cylinder.  Thus, the claim of the complainants is not sustainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            5.         The 2st Opposite Party denies the averments in Para-6 & 7 that gas leakage/fire has broken out due to faulty cylinder.  The cylinder involved in the incident has been sent for accident analysis certification from the NABL Accredited Laboratory.  It conducted the leak test and has found no leak from bung, C-Weld, stay plate weld, foot ring and body of the cylinder.  As regards the pneumatic tests, they were not able to conduct the same since the value internals had fallen into the cylinder.  Thus the certificate makes it clear that the person who has opened the safety cap must have used or applied force on the valve internals i.e. the spindle and the pin causing its fall inside the cylinder allowing the gas to escape, which could have been prevented by putting back the safety cap in its place.  Therefore, the accident must have taken place on account of the sheer negligence on the part of the person who has handled the cylinder, which is further corroborated from the following facts;

1. The oil lamp which was burning in the pooja room between the hall and the rear of the house was admittedly not extinguished while opening of the cylinder for changing.
2. The cylinder which was said to be empty in the kitchen was not disconnected before opening the cylinder involved in the accident.
3. The Complainants have also two more cylinders in others name which leads to the conclusion that it may be a case of illegal filling taken place in the premises which is a criminal offence.

6.         The averments made by the Complainants about their work and salary and they are not in a position to do work as earlier are hereby denied and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.  Regarding medical and other expenses, the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.  It is not in dispute that the 1^st Opposite Party has obtained a policy of insurance from National Insurance Company Ltd., under Public Liability Policy for the period covering from 02.05.2012, till midnight of 01.05.2013 bearing No.251100/46/12/950000206.  The policy covers public liability for anyone, anywhere in India for coverage of the risks.  Hence, the 1^st Opposite Party recommended the complainants to settle the insurance amount covered as per the abovesaid policy.  The National Insurance company after verifying documents submitted by the Complainant settled some amount and the Complainant received the same towards injury and has given an affidavit stating that they received the amount and has also declared that they have no more claims from the 1^st Opposite Party and has received the compensation in full and final settlement towards the accident.  Now the complainants cannot turn around and claim compensation before this Hon'ble Forum.  The complainants issued legal notice and thereafter this Opposite Party settled the claims through their Insurer, hence, no way binds this Opposite Party for compensation because this Opposite Party already settled the amount and the complainants have executed the affidavit stating that the claim is fully settled.

            7.         Regarding cause of action, the complainants themselves admitted that the incident took place on 06.06.2012.  As per Sec.24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the limitation to file a complaint is within two years from the date of cause of action, whereas the complaint has been filed on 05.09.2014.  Nearly there is a 3 months delay in filing these complaints, hence, on this ground also the complaints are liable to be dismissed.  The complaints are also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The 2^nd Opposite Party has obtained a policy of insurance from National Insurance Company Ltd., under Public Liability Policy, therefore, the National Insurance Company Ltd., is a proper and necessary party to the above complaint.  While appointing the 2^nd Opposite Party as a distributor, the 1^st Opposite Party has entered into an agreement dt.04.11.2009 with the 2^nd Opposite Party.  As is clear from clause-18 in the head of “NO WARRANTY BY THE CORPORATON” in sub clause (a) and (b) of the agreement at page No.7 and the 1^st Opposite Party has not given any express or implied warranty as regards to the manufacture of LPG cylinder that may be supplied and delivered.  Under the agreement itself, it is made clear that the 1^st Opposite Party under no circumstances be liable or responsible for any loss, injury or damages to the distributor or to the customers or any other persons arising on account of any transaction under agreement or as a result of use of LPG cylinder in anyway defective or in unfit condition.  Therefore, the 1^st Opposite Party is in no way liable to pay compensation to the complainants.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaints.

            8.         The 2^nd Opposite Party in the version pleaded that Late Sri Padmanbha Rao obtained LPG Gas Cylinder with two cylinders and one regulator from this Opposite Party is false.  He had obtained while he was residing in Sri Ramapuram from Indane Gas Distributor M/s Jyothi Gas Service, Seshadripuram, Bangalore.  He got his gas connection transferred to this Opposite Party distributorship on 15.07.2005 with consumer No.19764, since he changed his residence to R.R. Layout, Nagadevanahalli.  Now it is learnt that the said Sri Padmanabha Rao passed away long back and after his death, suppressing the said material fact and without getting the connection transferred in the name of the legal representatives of Sri Padmanabha Rao, the Complainants and few others have been unauthorisidely indenting and getting the Indane gas refills from this Opposite Party and have been practicing fraud on the Opposite Parties.  The relationship with Sri Padmanabha Rao as stated in the cause title is not known to this Opposite Party and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is also denied that he was living in the house mentioned in the consumers’ address.  It is emphatically denied that the Complainant is a legal representative or beneficiary of the consumer as per Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            9.         It is an undisputed fact that the gas cylinder was delivered on 26.05.2012 vide voucher No.32364.  But the allegations of the Complainant that the cylinder was a faulty one, defective and substandard are totally false and baseless.  It is false to say that the cylinder did not have the safety pin.  Infact, it does not stand to reason when no cylinder can even be filled with gas without the pin in the valve.  It is the said pin in the valve which facilities filling of the gas and also prevents the leakage of gas from the cylinder.  Devanagonthi bottling plant where the gas is filled into the cylinders is one of the most sophisticated plant in our country and the cylinders, valves, pins and the ‘O’ rings are subject to various checks and tests before and after filling the gas, for faults if any to prevent all kinds of leaks of the gas, be it in the body of the cylinder, bung, the valve, ‘O’ ring and the pin.  After filling of the gas, the cylinder is transported to the distributor and before it is delivered to the customer and once again the cylinder, valve, ‘O’ ring and the pin are checked after opening the safety cap before the consumer and this procedure has been meticulously followed in the instant case before the cylinder was delivered and infact the same has been acknowledged by the representatives of the person who received the cylinder.

            10.      Smt. Seetabai, mother of the Complainant or whosoever it is, he or she has not exercised the most elementary precautions of putting back the safety cap in its place on the cylinder if the cylinder was really leaking instead of covering the cylinder with a bed sheet and pushing towards the rear door.  As regards breaking out of huge fire, it is because of the lamp which was burning in the pooja room near the place where the cylinder was tried to be opened, which should have been put off as per safety norms to be followed.  The cylinder involved was not shown at the spot where the accident is alleged to have taken place.  But it was lying outside the premises and shown to this Opposite Party.  However, it is true this Opposite Party took possession of the cylinder involved in the accident and has sent it for accident analysis certification from the NABL Accredited Laboratory which conducted the leak test and have found no leak from bung, C-weld, stay plate weld, foot ring and body of the cylinder.  As regards the pneumatic tests they were not able to conduct the same since the valve internals had fallen into the cylinder.  Thus the certificate makes it clear that the person who has opened the safety cap must have used or applied force on the valve internal, i.e., the spindle and thus causing the pin falling inside the cylinder allowing the gas to escape which could have been prevented by putting back the safety cap in its place.

            11.      Therefore, this Opposite Party submits that the accident must have occurred on account of sheer negligence on the part of the person who has handled the cylinder which is corroborated by the following facts –

(i)       The oil lamp which was burning in the pooja room between the hall and the rear of the house was admittedly not extinguished while opening of the cylinder for changing.

(ii)      The cylinder which was said to be empty in the kitchen was not disconnected before opening the cylinder involved in the accident.

(iii)     Sri Padmanabha Rao’s household has also two more HP cylinders in the name of the Complainant’s deceased mother which leads to the conclusion that it may be a case of illegal filling taking place in the premises which is a criminal offence.

The complainants are put to strict proof of the contention about the expenses incurred.  Besides, it is also gathered that the complainants have claimed and obtained most of the medical expenses incurred for the accident victim from Bosch Company and other sources like ESI etc.  The National Insurance Company, the Insurer of the 1^st Opposite Party has already paid the compensation to the complainants under ‘no fault liability’. It was a necessary party and the complaint without making it a party is not maintainable.  Further, the Complainants have to repay already received amount, since they cannot be a ‘Consumer’ u/s 2(1(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            12.      The Insurance Company obviously paid the compensation paid the compensation assuring that the persons involved in the accident are eligible to receive the compensation.  Thus paying some compensation does not mean that the accident was due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Party being a distributor of gas cylinders is required to deliver the gas cylinders received from the 1^st Opposite Party safely to the consumers.  In this case also this Opposite Party has duly delivered the gas cylinder as received from after proper pre-delivery check and as such it is in no way liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.  The complainants are not entitled to any compensation much less the sum of Rs.7,18,000/- and to any interest as claimed.  The complainants are only trying to make a fortune out of a misfortune not caused by this Opposite Party and is making false claims.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaints.

            13.      The 3^rd Opposite Party in the version pleaded that this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The issue involved in this case is of civil in nature.  The Complainants have to approach the competent civil court for seeking in respect of alleged grievance stated thereto in the complaint as laid down in the principles by Hon'ble National Commission in several cases.  The complaints are liable to be dismissed as this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try these cases as the cause of action has not aroused within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum.  These cases are liable to b rejected as they are barred by limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties.  These complaints are liable to be dismissed for resjudicata since the complainants admittedly have received compensation from National Insurance Company Ltd., as full and final settlement and Complainants cannot claim double relief on single cause of action.  The complainants are not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The averments made in the complaint are not within the knowledge of this Opposite Party and the same are hereby denied specifically and in toto the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.  The Opposite Party are carrying on the business of general insurance.  The Opposite Party has issued insurance policy namely Multi Perils for LPG Dealers Policy in favour of M/s Rashmi Distributors i.e. 2^nd Opposite Party for the period from 11.04.2012 to 10.04.2013 vide policy No.67010243121300000004.  It is submitted that the above complaint is liable to be dismissed against this Opposite Party since the Complainant has not made any allegation against this Opposite Party towards deficiency in service if any.  This Opposite Party is not liable to satisfy any award that would be passed in the above case as the 2^nd Opposite Party/insured has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy in question.  It is submitted that in policy as well as schedule to the policy, it is no where mentioned that the insurer is liable to pay compensation to customers of insured when accident takes place at premises of insured after installation.  Hence, this Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation in the above case.  As per Sec.3 of the terms and conditions set out in schedule of the policy, the risk is covered only when the LPG cylinders are being transmitted from insured’s office to customer’s of insured or in the course of being carried for installation by the employees of the insured.  The alleged accident has not taken place at the time of installation of LPG cylinders and it has taken place on some other day.  Again this is subject to special condition No.1 to 4 that the LPG cylinder supplied by insured should be sound in all respects then only the insurer can be made liable.  The plea of the Complainant in this case is that the LPG cylinders were not proper and as such this condition will attract and insurer would not be liable even if the fire accident had taken place at the time of installation of LPG cylinders.  As per Sec.9 of the schedule, the insurer would not be liable to compensate to customer’s of insured.  Hence, this Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation.  Even otherwise, the risk factor, location, specified perils are exclusively set out in the policy itself.  The description of the policy clearly mentions that risk is covered in respect of cylinders in transit and the same is covered upto Rs.2,00,000/- per year.  Admittedly, in the instant case, the alleged incident has taken place in the premises of Complainant and not in the premises of 2^nd Opposite Party and moreover the alleged accident has not even taken place during transit of cylinders i.e. while LPG cylinders are being shifted to Complainant’s house from premises of 2^nd Opposite Party.  Hence, the risk/incident that took place on 06.06.2012 is not covered under the policy in question.  The incident in question in involving injury to three persons/Complainants in respective cases and death of two persons are not covered under the insurance policy in question.  The terms of the insurance policy in question produced by this Opposite Party clearly demonstrates that this Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to complaint.  In the event of Complainant establishing the deficiency in service on behalf of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties in the above case, this Opposite Party cannot be made liable to indemnify the said Opposite Parties since there is no privities of contract between this Opposite Party and with any of the other Opposite Parties to indemnify.    Hence, the above complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to be payable by the Complainant and other Opposite Parties to this Opposite Party as they have impleaded this Opposite Party knowing well that policy in question does not cover cause of action under consideration.  The alleged incident took place on 06.06.2012 and it has resulted in death of Smt. Seethabai and Smt. Jayalakshmi and injuries to R.Kumar, R. Vijay Vittal Rao and Smt. Chandrika.  This Opposite Party further denies that the incident took place due to defective cylinder supplied by the 2^nd Opposite Party and further it is denied that incident took place due to leakage of gas in LPG cylinder supplied by said Opposite Party.  It is further denied that the Complainant is put to strict proof regarding aforesaid facts alleged in complaint.  Without prejudice to above stand, it is submitted that the Complainant and the persons in the house of Complainant have not taken proper care while using the LPG cylinder supplied by the 2^nd Opposite Party and they had no proper knowledge of using the LPG cylinder.  Hence, they cannot seek compensation for their own sheer negligence.  This Opposite Party specifically denies the age, address, avocation/earnings of the Complainant/deceased and the injured are not in a position to do their earlier work.  The Opposite Parties specifically deny the medical expenditure and other incidental expenditure claimed to be spent by them and they are put to strict proof of the same.  It is submitted that the concerned jurisdictional police after investigation have rightly filed ‘B’ report regarding the incident in question, which demonstrates that the accident/incident in question was not due to negligence/carelessness of other Opposite Parties.  The complaint has also failed to produce any certificate or evidence of the expert to prove that there was leakage of LPG cylinder.  This Opposite Party submits that the Complainant has not issued any legal notice to this Opposite Party nor has lodged any complaint/claim with the Opposite Party and nor has made any allegation of deficiency in service.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this Opposite Party.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaints.

14.      In support of the complaints, in CC.No.1581/2014 the complainant Sri R.Vijaya Vittal Rao has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  In CC.No.1582/2014 the complainant Sri P. Sridhar has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  In CC.No.1583/2014 the complainant Sri R.Raghavendra Rao has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  In CC.No.1584/2014 the complainant Smt. Chandrika has filed her affidavit by way of evidence.  In CC.No.1585/2014 the complainant Sri R.Kumar has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  For the 1^st Opposite Party Sri R.Ganapathy Subramanian, Chief Area Manager has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  For the 2^nd Opposite Party Sri L.M. Balakrishna, Manager has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  For the 3^rd Opposite Party Sri M.V. Jayaprakash, Divisional Manager has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  Heard the arguments of both the parties.

15.      Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainants have proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties?

2. If so, to what relief the Complainants are entitled?

16.      Our findings on the above points are:-

                        POINT (1):-  Affirmative

                        POINT (2):-As per the final Order

REASONS

17.      POINT NO. 1:-         As looking into the averments of the complaint and also the version filed by the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that Late Sri Padmanabha Rao had a LPG gas connection bearing No.19764 from the 2^nd Opposite Party.  It is also not in dispute that the gas cylinder is supplied through 2^nd Opposite Party on 26.05.2012 vide voucher No.32364.  Further in support of this fact, the complainants have filed their affidavit and in the sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced the customer transfer subscription voucher issued by the 1^st Opposite Party.  As looking into this, it is clear that Late Sri Padmanabha Rao had a gas connection bearing customer No.19764 with additional cylinder and also produced voucher issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  By looking into this document, it is clear that the 2^nd Opposite Party supplied gas cylinder to the customer No.19764 in the name of Late Sri Padmanabha Rao on 26.05.2012 by receiving a sum of Rs.415/-.  This evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged.  To discard their version, there is no contra evidence.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the complainants that the complainants have a gas connection bearing consumer No.19764 in the name of Sri Padmanabha Rao.  On 26.05.2012 the 2^nd Opposite Party supplied the gas cylinder after receiving a sum of Rs.415/-.

            18.      It is the further case of the complainants that LPG cylinder supplied by the 2^nd Opposite Party was a faulty, defective and substandard which did not contain the requisite mandatory safety pin which is essentially required to prevent the gas from leakage.  Infact at the time of delivery, the cylinder was covered by a plastic seal and the fact that the safety pin was absent and not in existence in the cylinder was not visible when the said cylinder was delivered particularly when the said cylinder was an additional cylinder which was not put the use immediately since the first cylinder was still being used.  The concerned officer of the Opposite Party upon thorough examination has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence and fault on the part of the Opposite Party.  On 06.06.2012 when the first cylinder became empty, the mother of the Smt. Seethabai had a vast experience in connecting the regulator to the new cylinder during past several years.  When Smt. Seethabai removed the specific plastic seal cover in the usual manner under bonafide impression that there would be no leakage of gas, for the purpose of connecting it to the regulator, the gas inside the faulty cylinder leaked out very fast since there was no safety pin.  The leakage of gas from the faulty cylinder was very rapid and Smt. Seethabai tried to stop the leakage by closing the cylinder with a bed sheet and pushed the same towards the rear door.  There was a lamp in the kitchen which leads to catching fire and spreading all over the house.  In order to substantiate this fact, the complainants in their sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced the acknowledgement issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  As looking into this acknowledgement, the 2^nd Opposite Party informed that they took the possession of the empty cylinder bearing SR.No.535310 JESMAIO without the pin but with ‘O’ ring intact on 07.06.2012 which was involved in the fire accident which took place on 06.06.2012 at the house of Sri Padmanabha Rao, Nagadevanahalli, Bangalore, Consumer No.19764.  So from this evidence also it is very clear that even the 2^nd Opposite Party themselves clearly informed that when they received the empty cylinder supplied to the Complainant’s house at Nagadevanahalli bearing customer No.19764 on 07.06.2012, the cylinder is without a safety pin.  To disbelieve this evidence, there is no contra evidence.  On the other hand, the 1^st Opposite Party in their version pleaded that the LPG cylinder supplied by the 1^st Opposite Party is thoroughly subjected to leakage test by qualified personnel by using sophisticated equipments at the bottling plant, the distributor in turn carried out pre-delivery checks before delivering the filled cylinder to the customer.  In the instant case, the gas cylinder was supplied to the Complainant on 26.05.2012 after thoroughly checking the cylinder.  But in order to substantiate this defence, except the interested version of the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party has not filed any supporting evidence to show that the LPG cylinder supplied by the 1^st Opposite Party are thoroughly subject to leakage test by the qualified persons by using sophisticated equipments and also the distributor in turn carried out pre-delivery checks before delivering the filled cylinder to the customer.  If it is so, the 1^st Opposite Party ought to have produced some evidence in support of their defence, but absolutely except the interested version of the 1^st Opposite Party, they have not placed any evidence, thereby it is not proper to accept the defence taken by the 1^st Opposite Party.

            19.      On the other hand, the 2^nd Opposite Party in their version take a defence that the cylinder involved in the accident has been sent for the accident analysis certification from the NABL Accredited Laboratory.  It conducted the leak test and has found no leak from bung, C-Weld, stay plate weld, foot ring and body of the cylinder.  As regards the pneumatic tests, they were not able to conduct the same since the value internals had fallen into the cylinder.  Thus the certificate makes it clear that the person who has opened the safety cap must have used or applied force on the valve internals i.e. the spindle and the pin causing its fall inside the cylinder allowing the gas to escape.  To substantiate this fact, Sri L.M.Balakrishna, Manager of the 2^nd Opposite Party has filed his affidavit and in the sworn testimony he reiterated the same.  In support of this, the 2^nd Opposite Party has filed Accident Analysis Report issued by NABL Accredited Laboratory.  Even as looking into this report, it is clearly mentioned that tightness of joint packing and valve spindle could not be tested, tightness of valve spindle and valve housing could not be tested and tightness of joint packing and housing could not be tested and final remarks is test could not conducted as valve internals were not present.  So even from this report, valve internals were not present.  This fact is supported by the acknowledgement issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party i.e. M/s Rashmi Gas Agenceis i.e. when they received the empty cylinder from the house of the Complainant after the incident i.e. on 07.06.2012 which was involved in the fire accident took place on 06.06.2012, they received the cylinder without safety pin.  So from this evidence itself, it falsifies the defence taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party and also when who has opened the safety cap must have used are applied force on the valve internal i.e. spindle and the pin causing its fall inside the cylinder.  Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the person who opened the cap applied a force.  Even assuming that the person who opened the cap applied force even according to the defence and as a result of applying force, the safety pin falls inside the cylinder.  On the other hand, according to their acknowledgement issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party themselves, when they received the cylinder, they have not found the safety pin even inside the cylinder.  Thereby it falsifies the defence taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  On the other hand, as the contention taken by the complainants, when they received the cylinder, the cylinder was covered with plastic seal and on the alleged date of incident i.e. on 06.06.2012, the mother of the Complainant Smt. Seethabai attempted to connect the cylinder to the regulator, when she opened the plastic cap, the gas inside the cylinder was rushed out forcibly, even Smt. Seethabai tried to prevent the same by putting the cloth and dragging the same to the rear door, in that event, due to lamp in the kitchen catches fire and as a result of this, the perons who are present in the house at the time of incident i.e. the Complainant and deceased Smt. Seethabai and Smt. Jayalakshmi sustained burn injuries.  To discard this fact, absolutely there is no contra evidence placed by the Opposite Party, therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that as a result of the absence of the safety pin in the cylinder supplied by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 when the plastic cap was opened, the gas from the cylinder rushed forcibly and it was unable to prevent the same by Smt. Seethabai and as result it catches fire.  Due to this, the persons who are present in the house sustained burn injuries.

            20.      It is the further case of the Complainant that in CC.No.1581/2014 as a result of the fire accident, he sustained serious burn injuries and admitted to Shreya Nursing Home and thereafter shifted to BGS Global Hospital.  The Complainant suffered first and second degree 35 to 40% burn injuries and he took treatment from 06.06.2012 to 12.07.2012 and he spent Rs.15,000/- at Shreya Nursing Home and Rs.1,45,000/- at BGS Global Hospital.  To substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced the tax invoice issued by Shreya Pharmacy and also produced the inpatient bill issued by BGS Global Hospital.  As looking into this, the Complainant Sri R. Vijay Vittal Rao has taken treatment in the BGS Global Hospital from 06.06.2012 to 12.07.2012.  As a result of this, he incurred a sum of Rs.1,45,664/-.  So this evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged.  Thereby it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant has spent a sum of Rs.1,45,664/- and Rs.15,000/- totaling Rs.1,60,000/-.  In the complaint the Complainant claiming total compensation of Rs.7,18,000/- under different heads hereunder;

He specifically pleaded that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and he was working as a Transport Officer with ANZ Pvt. Ltd., Manyatha Tech Park through Bangalore Software Services and he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month.  But to substantiate this fact, except the interested version, the Complainant has not placed any evidence, thereby it is not proper to accept that the Complainant was working as a transport officer in ANZ Pvt. Ltd., Manyatha Tech Park and earning Rs.18,000/- per month.  The Complainant is not entitled for other relief as prayed in the complaint.  The Opposite Party have denied for adequate compensation as demanded in his legal notice.  Due to this, he has got mental agony, thereby he is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony. Hence, the Complainant is claiming compensation of Rs.2,60,000/-.  Even as looking into the averments of the complaint, he has clearly mentioned that he has received a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from National Insurance Company.  So after deducting the same, now the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-.

            21.      The Complainants in CC.No.1582/2014 pleaded that injuries and death of Smt. Jayalakshmi was solely due to negligence of the Opposite Party in providing faulty cylinder which leads to fire accident on account of leakage of gas from the cylinder.  The Complainant has spent huge amount towards hospital and medical expenses and other charges towards the treatment of deceased Smt. Jayalakshmi.  Thereby the Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs.9,00,000/- towards the Complainant towards the loss caused to have on account of the injury and death of mother Smt. Jayalakshmi.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant Mr.P.Sridhar has filed his affidavit evidence and in the sworn testimony also he reiterated the same and produced the Discharge Summary issued by BGS Global Hospital.  As looking into this Discharge Summary, Smt.Jayalakshmi was taken treatment in BGS Global Hospital from 06.06.2012 to 03.07.2012 and also produced the slip issued by the Shreya Hospital to show that prior to admitting to BGS Global Hospital, Smt.Jayalakshmi was taken treatment at Shreya Hospital by spending sum of Rs.5,000/- and for the treatment taken in BGS Global Hospital, they incurred a sum of Rs.3,26,455/-.  The complainants also produced the Post Mortem Report and as looking into this document, it clearly reveals that Smt. Jayalakshmi died on 03.07.2012 as per the opinion of the doctor who conducted the Post Mortem Report, the death of Smt.Jayalakshmi is due to septic shock as complication of burn injuries sustained.  Thereby this evidence clearly supports the contention of the Complainant that as a result of the leakage in the gas cylinder in the kitchen, lamp catches fire as a result of this Smt. Jayalakshmi sustained burn injuries and she was admitted to the BGS Global Hospital and prior to that, she has taken treatment at Shreya Hospital.  While she was taking treatment at BGS Global Hospital, she succumbed to burn injuries.  For her treatment, the Complainant spent a sum of Rs.3,31,455/-.  To disbelieve the evidence of the Complainant, there is no contra or rebuttal evidence.  Thereby it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.3,31,455/- towards medical expenses of Smt.Jayalakshmi who sustained burn injuries as a result of leakage of gas and due to this there was a fire accident.  Smt. Jayalakshmi succumbed to injuries and she was taken treatment up to 03.07.2012 for that the Complainants have incurred other miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.68,545/-. Thus the complainants have spent total sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.  The Complainants in the complaint claims compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under different heads as hereunder;

The complainants have lost their mother in the fire accident.  As a result, the complainants have lost love and affection and also they incurred funeral expenses and monthly ceremony expenses, thereby, the complainants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, in total the complainants are claiming compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-.  As seen from the averments of the complaint, the Complainants have received Rs.6,00,000/- from National Insurance Company.  So by deducting the said amount, the complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

            22.      Further inspite of requesting the Opposite Party for seeking compensation, the Opposite Parties fails to honour the request of the complainants, thereby it causes mental agony.  This is also evident as looking into the legal notice dt.07.08.2012.  In the notice the Complainants have clearly demanded for claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000/- including injury caused to the family members of the Complainants.  To this legal notice, the 2^nd Opposite Party issued reply on 18.09.2012.  In their reply admitted that the Complainant’s family members had obtained a LGP gas connection bearing No.19764 and additional cylinder for their domestic use, but denied the fire accident is due to delivery of the faulty cylinder and the accident taken place on account of their negligence of the family members of the complainants.  Thereby the complainants and his family members are not entitled for compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000/-.  But this defence has not been proved by the Opposite Parties by adducing cogent evidence.  Even though there is a leakage of gas and as a result of that there was a fire accident.  In that fire accident Smt. Jayalakshmi the mother of the Complainant and Smt.Seethabai succumbed to burn injuries and other family members have sustained burn injuries and due to burn injuries caused to the family members of the Complainant, they incurred some expenses as stated earlier.  When the complainants claimed that amount, the Opposite Parties fails to comply with the demand, thereby it causes mental agony to the Complainants and totally the complainants are entitled for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-.

            23.      The Complainants in CC.No.1583/2014 alleged that the burn injuries and the death of Smt. Jayalakshmi and Smt. Seethabai was solely due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties in providing faulty cylinder which leads to the fire accident on account of the leakage of gas from the cylinder.  The complainants have spent huge sum towards hospital expenses, medical expenses and other charges towards the treatment and death of Smt. Seethabai. The Complainants have undergone great pain and suffering physically and mentally due to the accident.  The complainants are entitled for the compensation from the Opposite Parties towards the death of Smt. Seethabai for a total sum of Rs.12,00,000/-.  In support of this contention, the Complainant Sri R. Raghavendra Rao has filed his affidavit evidence and in the sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced the Post Mortem Report.  As looking into the Post Mortem Report, it is dt.19.06.2012 between 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.  According to this Post Mortem Report, the deceased died on 19.06.2012 at 5.10 a.m.  The cause of death is due to septic shock due to burn injuries and also it further reveals that the deceased and others suffered due to accident on 06.06.2012.  So from this evidence, it is very clear as a result of the fire accident occurred on 06.06.2012 in the house of the Complainant, deceased Smt.Seethabai sustained burn injuries and at the first instance she was taken to Shreya Hospital.  This is supported by the prescription and bills issued by Shreya Hospital and Shreya Pharmacy dt.06.06.2012.  As looking into these medical bills, the complainants spent Rs.4,000/- at Shreya Hospital.  From there, the injured were shifted to BGS Global Hospital on 06.06.2012.  This is further supported by the inpatient bill issued by BGS Global Hospital.  As looking into these bills, the deceased Smt. Seethabai was admitted on 06.06.2012 and discharged on 19.06.2012.  The complainants spent about Rs.4,00,000/- for the treatment of the deceased Smt. Seethabai.  To disbelieve this version, there is no contra evidence, therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the complainants that the complainants have spent about Rs.4,00,000/- towards the treatment of deceased Smt. Seethabai, thereby the complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.  In the complaint, the complainants are claiming compensation of Rs.12 lakhs under different heads as hereunder;

Complainants have lost their mother in fire accident, as a result of that they lost love and affection of their mother and also they spent some amount towards funeral and monthly ceremonies.  Apart from that they also sustained loss to the damages caused to the building.  Altogether the complainants sustained loss of Rs.6,00,000/-, thereby the complainants are claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.  But as looking into the averments made in the complaint, the complainants have received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from National Insurance Company, so by deducting the same, the complainants are entitled compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

24.      The Complainant in CC.No.1584/2014 the complainant alleged that the injuries to the Complainant and death of Smt. Jayalakshmi and Smt. Seethabai was solely due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties in providing faulty cylinder which leads to fire accident on account of leakage of gas from the cylinder.  The Complainant has spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards hospital expense, medical expenses and other charges towards the treatment.  The Complainant has undergone great pain, suffering and physical and mental agony due to the incident.  The Complainant is entitled for compensation from the Opposite Parties towards the injuries suffered by the Complainant.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant in the sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced the prescriptions and medical bills issued by Shreya Hospital and Shreya Pharmacy.  As looking into these documents, it is clear that on the alleged date of incident as soon as the Complainant sustained burn injuries as a result of the fire accident, she was taken to Shreya Hospital at the first instance and from there, she incurred a sum of Rs.3,622/-, from Shreya Hospital she was shifted to BGS Global Hospital and this is supported by the inpatient bills issued by BGS Global Hospital.  As looking into these bills, it is clear that the Complainant has taken treatment in BGS Global Hospital from 06.06.2012 to 11.06.2012 and she incurred a sum of Rs.23,318/-. So in total the Complainant has spent a sum of Rs.26,940/- towards medical expenses to her treatment and also Complainant suffers pain and suffering and mental agony, thereby the complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  Apart from that the Complainant also incurred other expenses altogether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.76,940/-.  To disbelieve this evidence of the Complainant, there was no contra evidence, therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.76,940/-.  As looking into the averments of the complaint, the Complainant has received a sum of Rs.26,940/- from National Insurance company and after deducting the same, the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

            25.      The Complainant in CC.No.1585/2014 the Complainant alleged that the Complainant has spent a huge sum of amount towards hospital expenses, medical expenses and other charges towards his treatment.  The Complainant has undergone great pain, suffering, physical and mental agony due to the incident.  Thereby the Complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.9,10,000/-.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony has reiterated the same and produced the prescription and bill issued by Shreya Hospital and Shreya Pharma dt.06.06.2012 and also produced the Discharge Summary issued by BGS Global Hospital.  So from the evidence, it is clear that on the date of alleged fire accident sustained burn injuries and initially he was taken treatment at Shreya Hospital and for that he incurred a sum of Rs.17,397/- and from there, he was shifted to BGS Global Hospital for further treatment.  In BGS Global Hospital the Complainant has taken treatment as inpatient from 06.06.2012 to 12.07.2012 and also undergone surgery on 07.06.2012.  For that he has incurred a sum of Rs.3,75,200/-.  So totally the Complainant has spent a sum of Rs.3,92,593/- towards his treatment.  This evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged.  To disbelieve this evidence, there is no contra evidence, therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that he has spent Rs.3,92,593/- towards his treatment.  Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.  The Complainant in the complaint claiming total compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- under different heads.

In the complaint, the Complainant has clearly alleged that prior to accident he was hale and healthy and was working as a Marketing Executive in a company “Play N Pets Toys”, Play-n-Pets Mansion, B-1 Sector-59, Noida 201 301.  But the Complainant has not produced any document to substantiate his contention that he was working in that company and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the contention of the Complainant.  However, the Complainant has taken treatment for the burn injuries caused to him in the fire accident from 06.06.2012 to 12.07.2012 i.e. about 36 days.  During this period, the Complainant has incurred other miscellaneous expenditure for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, thereby the Complainant is claiming for total compensation of Rs.4,92,593/- and this amount rounded off to Rs.5,00,000/-.  Further as looking into the averments of the complaint, the Complainant has received Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from National Insurance Company.  After deducting the same, the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

            26.      The learned counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party argued that the grandfather of the Complainant Late Sri Padmanabha Rao had LPG gas connection bearing No.19764.  The connection was in the name of the deceased person.  After the death of any consumer, the successor must be informed it to the distributor and submit relevant documents and accordingly, the name should be changed.  But in the instant case, the consumer is the deceased person.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  The learned counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party argued that Late Sri Padmanabha Rao obtained LPG gas connection with two cylinders and one regulator from the 2^nd Opposite Party is false.  He has obtained while he was residing in Shrirampuram from Indian Gas Distributor M/s Jyothi Gas Services, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore.  He got his gas connection transfer to this Opposite Party on 15.07.2005 with Consumer No.19764 since he changed his residence to Nagadevanahalli, RR Layout, now it is learnt that the said Sri Padmanabha Rao passed away long back, after his death suppressed the material facts without getting connection transfer in the name of the legal representative of Sri Padmanabha Rao.  The Complainant and few others have unauthorizedly intending and get Indian gas refill from this Opposite Party.  From this argument of the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 it is an undoubted fact that the alleged cylinder is in the name of Late Sri Padmanabha Rao bearing consumer No.19764 and also at present Sri.Padmanabha Rao is no more.  But the 2^nd Opposite Party has not placed any evidence to show that the alleged cylinder was originally with M/s Jyothi Gas Services, Sheshadripuram in the name of Sri Padmanabha Rao and the same was transferred to this Opposite Party on 15.07.2005.  If it is so the 2^nd Opposite Party ought to have produced any evidence that at the time of changing the residence from Sheshadripuram to RR Layout the present residence, Sri Padmanabha Rao was still alive.  Even the 2^nd Opposite Party has not clearly mentioned when Sri Padmanabha Rao was passed away.  On the other hand, they vaguely argued that Sri.Padmanabha Rao passed away and by suppressing this fact, the complainants and other are unauthorizedly getting gas refill and committed fraud and practicing fraud.  If it is so, why these Opposite Parties have not initiated any proceedings against the Complainant and others, if they are practicing fraud?  Till this date the Opposite Parties have not initiated any proceedings against the complainants that they are practicing fraud by getting refill of the gas in the name of the dead person, thereby it is not proper at this stage to accept the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party and also it is not proper to accept the argument of the 1^st Opposite Party that complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

Sec.2(1)(b) defines

"complainant" means—

(i)          a consumer; or

(ii)         any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1of 1956)or under any other law for the time being in force; or

(iii)        the Central Government or any State Government,

(iv)        one or more consumers, where there are numerous consum­ers having the same interest;

(v)         in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint; 

So also, in the present case admittedly the LPG gas connection is in the name of the deceased Sri Padmanabha Rao, the complainants are the LRs of Sri Padmanabha Rao.  Thereby, the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.  Hence, it is not proper to accept the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties that these complaints are not maintainable before this Forum.

            27.      The learned counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party further argued that the LPG cylinder supplied by the 1^st Opposite Party was thoroughly subjected to leakage test by qualified persons by using sophisticated equipments at the bottling plant.  The distributor in turn carried pre-delivery checks before delivering the filled cylinder to the customer.  In the instant case the gas cylinder was supplied to the complainants on 26.05.2012 after thorough checking the cylinder at the time of deliver.  Even subsequently there was no complaint from anybody that there was leakage of gas from the cylinder.  This shows that there was no defect or any nature in the cylinder supplied by the Opposite Parties.  As stated earlier, absolutely the Opposite Parties have not placed any evidence to believe that the Opposite Parties have thoroughly subjected to leakage test by qualified persons by using sophisticated equipments and also the 2^nd Opposite Party in turn carried out pre-delivery check up before delivering the filled cylinder to the customer.  If it is so, they ought to have placed any piece of evidence to substantiate their argument, but absolutely there is no such argument placed by the Opposite Parties.  Thereby it is not proper to accept the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party that before delivering the alleged cylinder, they thoroughly checked by qualified persons by using sophisticated equipments and also the 2^nd Opposite Party pre-checked before delivery of the cylinder.

            28.      The learned counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party argued that the cylinder involved in the incident has been sent for the Accident Analysis Certificate from NABL Accredited Laboratory.  It conducted the leakage test and has found no leakage from bung, C-Weld, stay plate weld, foot ring and body of the cylinder.  As regards the pneumatic tests, they were not able to conduct the same since the value internals had fallen into the cylinder.  Thus the certificate makes it clear that the person who has opened the safety cap must have used or applied force on the valve internals i.e. the spindle and the pin causing its fall inside the cylinder allowing the gas to escape.  But to substantiate this fact also, the Opposite Parties have not placed any evidence to show that person who has opened the safety cap must have used or applied force on the valve internal i.e. the spindle and the pin causing it fallen inside the cylinder.  Even in that event, the safety pin ought to be in the cylinder itself.  But as per own document produced by the 2^nd Opposite Party i.e. acknowledgement for receiving the empty cylinder allegedly involved in the fire accident on 07.06.2012 clearly shows that there was no safety pin found in the cylinder.  This clearly goes to show that it falsifies the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party.  Even the person who opened the cylinder applied force and as a result of safety pin falls into the cylinder, the safety pin shall be found in the cylinder, but it is not so as per their own document i.e. acknowledgement issued the 1^st Opposite Party, thereby it is not proper to accept the argument putforth by the 1^st Opposite Party that as a result of the force applied by the person who opened the safety pin, there was a leakage.

            29.      The learned counsel for the Opposite Party argued that the complaint is barred by time.  Admittedly, the incident took place on 06.06.2012 as per Sec.24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the limitation to file the complaint is within two years from the date of cause of action whereas the complaint has been filed on 05.09.2004, nearly there is a 3 months delay in filing these complaints.  Hence, on this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Nodoubt admittedly the alleged incident took place on 06.06.2012.  As a result of this, the complainants were hospitalized and taken treatment up to 12.07.2012 and further as a result of this fire accident, Smt. Seethabai and Smt.Jayalakshmi who are the elderly persons of the family succumbed to burn injuries on 19.06.2012 and 03.07.2012.  The complainants were issued legal notice on 07.08.2012.  To this legal notice, the Opposite Party issued a reply on 18.09.2012.  So after issuing reply on 18.09.2012, within 2 years i.e. on 06.09.2014 the complainants have filed these complaints.  Sec.24(A)(1) reads as hereunder;

24A.      Limitation period. - (l) The District Forum, the State Commis­sion or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

So by reading this section, it is very clear that the complaints shall be filed within two year from the date on which the cause of action arises.  Wherein in the instant case, the cause of action will arises only on 18.09.2012 i.e. after the reply issued by the Opposite Party.  Thereby within two years from that date of cause of action, these complaints have filed.  Hence, these complaints are within time, therefore it is not proper to accept the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party that the complaints are barred by time.  The learned counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party argued that while appointing the 2^nd Opposite Party as a distributor, the 1^st Opposite Party has entered into an agreement dt.04.11.2009 that the 2^nd Opposite Party is clear from Clause-18 in the Head-No Warranty By The Corporation in Sub-clause-18 (a) and (b) of the agreement and the 1^st Opposite Party has not given any expressed and implied warranty as regard to the manufacturer of LPG cylinder that may be supplied and delivered under the agreement itself.  It is made clear that the 1^st Opposite Party under no circumstances liable or responsible for any loss injury or damage to the distributor or to the consumer or any other person arising on account of any transaction under the agreement or as a result of use of LPG cylinder in any way defective or unfit condition.  Therefore the learned counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party is in no way liable to pay compensation.  But it is not proper to accept the argument putforth by the 1^st Opposite Party that the 1^st Opposite Party is not liable or responsible for any loss, injury or damages to the distributor or to the customer or any other person arising on account of the transaction since the 2^nd Opposite Party is an Agent of the 1^st Opposite Party, thereby for any act of Agent, Principal is responsible.  Hence, it is not proper to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party that the 1^st Opposite Party is not liable or responsible for any injury or loss or damage to the distributor or customer or any other person arising out of any transaction.

            30.      The learned counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party argued that issue involved in this case is of civil in nature.  The Complainants have to approach the competent civil court for seeking in respect of the alleged grievance in the complaints.  As law laid down in the principles by the Hon'ble National Commission in several cases, complaints are liable to be dismissed as this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.  But in support of this argument, the learned counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party has not placed any decisions rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission.  But he vaguely argued that these complaints are liable to be dismissed as this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.  To substantiate this argument, he has not placed any relevant material evidence, thereby it is not proper to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party.  The learned counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party further argued that the Complainants have admittedly received the compensation from National Insurance Company as full and final settlement and the complainants cannot claim double relief on a single cause of action.  Complainants are not consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence, prays to dismiss the complaints.  But this argument of the learned counsel is not correct and it is not hold any water.  As submitted earlier, the Complainant means any consumer in case of death of consumer and his legal heirs and admittedly the deceased Sri Padmanabha Rao is a Consumer and the present Complainants are the LRs of the deceased Sri Padmanabha Rao, thereby Complainants are consumers.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the argument putforth by thele for the 3^rd Opposite Party and also the 3^rd Opposite Party have not placed any evidence to show that the complainants have received the compensation from National Insurance Company as full and final settlement.  Nodoubt the complainants themselves admitted that they received some compensation from National Insurance Company, but as not full and final settlement.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party that complaints are not maintainable.

            31.      The learned counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party argued that this Opposite Party is not liable to specify any award that would be passed in the above case as the 2^nd Opposite Party Insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question.  In the policy as well as the schedule of the policy, it is nowhere mentioned that the Insurer is liable to pay compensation to the customer of the insured when accident took place at the premises of the insured after installation.  Hence, this Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation as per Sec.3 of the terms and conditions set out in the policy, but it is not so as looking into Sec.3  of the policy.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party that the 3^rd Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the customer of the insured when accident took place at the premises of the insured after installation.  Further the learned counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party argued that admittedly in the instant case the alleged incident has taken place in the premises of the co and not in the premises of the 2^nd Opposite Party and moreover, the alleged accident has not even taken place during the transit of cylinder i.e. why LPG cylinder are being shifted to the house from the premises of 2^nd Opposite Party.  Hence, the risk took place on 06.06.2012 is not covered under the policy in question.  Even it is not proper to accept this argument also as by seeing Sec.3 of the policy.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party that the 3^rd Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation.

            32.      On the other hand, from the evidence available on record it is crystal clear that the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the dealer and agent of the 1^st Opposite Party has supplied the faulty cylinder.  The cylinder which was supplied by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant have not safety pin, when the Complainant opened the plastic cap which was covered in the cylinder to connect the same to the regulator for installation, due to lack of safety pin the gas emerges out speedly, due to this catches fire and as a result of fire accident Smt. Seethabai and Smt.Jayalakshmi succumbed to burn injuries.  The Complainants Sri Vijay Vittal Rao, Smt. Chandrika and Sri P. Sridha sustained burn injuries.  So due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2, the above said persons have sustained burn injuries and also succumbed to burn injuries.  This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 & 2.  The 3^rd Opposite Party being an Insurer is also liable to pay compensation as claimed in the complaint.  Hence, this point is held in the affirmative.

33.      POINT NO.3:-          In view of the finding on Point No.1, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaints are allowed holding that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3.  The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are directed pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the Complainant in CC.No.1581/2014, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainants in CC.No.1582/2014, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainants in CC.No.1583/2014, a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant in CC.No.1584/2014 and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Complainant in CC.No.1585/2014.  The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards costs of this litigation to the complainants.  The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are granted 30 days time from this date to comply this Order.  Failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this Order, till the date of realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

Keep the copy of this order in CC.Nos. 1582/2014, 1583/2014, 1584/2014 and 1585/2014.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 31^st day of May 2016).

       MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

CC. NOs. 1581/2014 TO 1585/2014

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witnesses not examined, but affidavit of the witnesses is filed, as follows;

1. Sri R.Vijaya Vittal Rao has filed his affidavit for Complainant in CC.No.1581/2014.
2. Sri P. Sridhar has filed his affidavit for Complainant in CC.No.1582/2014.
3. Sri R.Raghavendra Rao has filed his affidavit for Complainant in CC.No.1583/2014.
4. Smt. Chandrika has filed her affidavit for Complainant in CC.No.1584/2014.
5. Sri R.Kumar has filed his affidavit for Complainant in CC.No.1585/2014.
6. Sri R. Ganapathy Subramanian, Chief Area Manager has filed his affidavit by way of evidence for the 1^st Opposite Party.
7. Sri L.M. Balakrishna, Manager has filed his affidavit by way of evidence for the 2^nd Opposite Party.
8. Sri M.V. Jayaprakash, Divisional Manager has filed his affidavit by way of evidence for the 3^rd Opposite Party.

List of documents filed by the Complainants :

1. Copy of the LPG gas connection card in the name of Mr.R.Padmanabha Rao.
2. Copy of the acknowledgement for having supplied the cylinder.
3. Copy of the Investigation Report.
4. Copies of Medical Bills and Prescriptions.
5. Copies of the complaint and FIR.
6. Copy of the Insurance Policy and copy of the passbook for having received the amount.
7. Copies of the legal notice dt.07.08.2012 and reply notice dt.18.09.2012.
8. Photographs of the victims and property damages.
9. CD containing all the photographs
10. LPG Accident Report dt.16.06.2012.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party No.1 :

1. Copy of the agreement dt. 04.11.2009.
2. Copy of the insurance policy.
3.  Copy of the affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party No.2 :

1. Copy of the acknowledgment by the receiver of gas cylinder.
2. Copy of the FIR.
3. Copy of the ‘B’ Report.
4. Copy of the Accident Analysis Report by NABL Accredited Laboratory.
5. Copy of the insurance policy taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party No.3 :

1. Copy of the insurance policy.
2. Copy of the terms and conditions.

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT